Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> writes: > John Bokma wrote: >> Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, John Bokma wrote: >>>>> One thing that comes to mind is that it's much easier to >>>>> distribute C libraries than C++ libraries. >>>> In the beginning of C++ there were programs that just converted C++ to C >>>> (frontends). At least that is how the C++ compiler Acorn sold worked. >>>> So I don't think your argument was much true back then. >>> No, he is still right. Each C++ implementation did name mangling >>> differently leading to "C" libraries that had incompatible names and >>> signatures. Also each frontend could have generated incompatible >>> vtables and other C++ structures. So C code generated by one C++ >>> frontend could not easily call C code generated by another C++ frontend. >>> So the same arguments that are made about C++ now were just as valid >>> back then when C++ was merely a fancy preprocessor. >> >> See my other post: I understand that two C++ preprocessors can't call >> each others generated code, but if one uses C++ and knows that one can >> only use shared C libraries on target systems, and not C++ libraries >> that might be present (or more likely not: C++ was new in those days). > > So if Python were written in C++, and an extension was written in C++, > how could the two call each other?
Via C. -- John Bokma j3b Hacking & Hiking in Mexico - http://johnbokma.com/ http://castleamber.com/ - Perl & Python Development -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
